2024 (8) TMI 332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Kumar, AOR Mr. Umakant Misra, Adv. ORDER PER Leave granted. 1. Heard Mr. V. Chandra Shekhar Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (defendant). The respondent No.1 (plaintiff) is represented by Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel. The 2nd respondent is represented by Mr. Umakant Misra, learned counsel. 2. The short issue to be considered here is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming damage for malicious prosecution against the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and their Officer is maintainable and if the suit is filed within the period of limitation prescribed for such suits. 3. It is not in dispute that the instant suit for compensation for malicious prosecution is to be filed within one year of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... would indicate that when the plaint was re-filed after due service of notice and expiry of two months from the date of notice under Section 80 of the CPC, it was beyond the one year period prescribed for limitation for such suit. 7. In the present case, the High Court proceeded to consider the maintainability of the suit under Section 155 (2) of the Customs Act. However, in our considered opinion, the maintainability of the suit should have been considered vis-à-vis the provision of Section 80 of the CPC. 8. In Bihari Chowdhary & Anr v. State of Bihar reported in (1984) 2 SCC 627, it is clearly specified that suit against the Government or public officer to which the requirement of a prior notice under Section 80 CPC is attrac....